Ridgeview Health Services, INC
907 11th Street, NE, Jasper, AL 35504 · For profit - Individual · 148 certified beds · (205) 221-9111 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2025
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $8,788 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-08)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- about 25% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.4% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.1% | 5.4% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.1% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.3% | 1.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.3% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 39.6% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.2% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.3% | 5.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 5.8% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 25.9% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.2% | 80.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.6% | 24.8% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.0% | 11.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.10 | 1.96 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.40 | 1.70 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
52.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 181 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 87 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 32% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 52.3%CMS range 45.2–60.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 6.3–12.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 57.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 34.5% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 51.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 67.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 6.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.0%CMS range 3.3–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 148 beds and averages 138.6 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.85 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.30 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.04 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.57 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-08-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, review of a facility policy titled, Negative Pressure Wound Therapy, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #150's hospital records and review of a complaint received by the State Agency, the facility failed to provide, in a timely manner, a wound vacuum (vac) as prescribed by RI #150's hospital physician. On 11/10/2022 RI #150 was admitted to the facility with hospital physician orders for a wet-to-dry packing and a wound vac was to be placed to RI #150's right abdominal surgical wound once RI #150 was admitted to the facility. According to facility staff the wound vac was not placed until 11/14/2022, four days after RI #150 was admitted to the facility. RI #150 was discharged from the facility back to the hospital on [DATE] due to an elevated Creatinine laboratory result. When evaluated in the emergency room (ER), RI #150 was found to have dehiscence (a surgical complication where a closed incision reopens) of the right abdominal surgical wound site and a greenish purulent…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, review of a Facility Reported Incident (FRI), review of the facility investigative file and a facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation the facility failed to protect Resident Identifier (RI) #152's right to be free from physical abuse perpetrated by another resident, RI #151. On 03/31/2023, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #12 witnessed RI #151 physically abuse RI #152, a cognitively impaired resident, when RI #151 was found in RI #152's room placing a pillow over RI #152's head while RI #152 was in bed. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and interventions for RI #151, a resident with a history of wandering and aggressive behaviors, to prevent other residents from being abused by RI #151. The witness, CNA #12 said, someone who had a pillow placed over their head may feel smothered or that someone was trying to harm them.This affected one of nine residents sampled for abuse. Findings include: Cross-reference F740. On 03/31/2023 at 8:32 PM the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, interviews and review of a facility policy titled, ACCIDENT/INCIDENT STAFF RESPONSIBILITY, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #16's fall interventions to have mats on the floor on both sides of the bed; and for the bed to be lowered for safety was being implemented on three of four days of the survey. This affected RI #16, one of four residents sampled for accidents. Findings Include: Review of a facility policy titled, ACCIDENT/INCIDENT STAFF RESPONSIBILITY, with a revision date of 08/08/2022 revealed the following: . Accident refers to an unexpected or unintentional incident, which may result in injury or illness to a resident . RI #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Dementia, Severity, with Agitation and Personal History of Transient Attack. RI #16's Incident Report, dated 12/07/2024, documented the following: . Incident Type . Found on floor (checked) .Note any injury to the head, extremities, or trunk . No injury…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of a facility's policy titled Behavioral Health Services, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #151, a resident with behaviors that were difficult to manage, had interventions and supervision to prevent abuse of other residents and to protect other residents and ensure safety and privacy from RI #151's aggressive wandering behaviors. This deficient practice affected RI #151 and RI #152 two of four residents sampled for behaviors. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00043781/459160.Findings include:Cross-reference F600On 03/31/2023 at 8:32 PM, the State Agency received a Facility Incident Report (FRI) reporting that Resident Identifier (RI) #151 was found in RI #152's room and RI #151 had a pillow over RI #152's head. A facility policy titled Behavioral Health & (and) Management with a revised date of 10/13/2022 documented: . It is the policy Ridgeview Health Services to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, the facility's 2025 Spring/Summer Menu for Wednesday - Day 11, the facility's Portioning Utensils document, and the facility's policies for Menu Planning and Menu Substitution Lists, the facility failed to ensure the correct portions of pureed food were served at Dinner/Supper on 08/06/2025.This had the potential to affect three of eleven residents receiving a Pureed Diet. Findings Include: The facility's policy for Menu Planning, dated 2023, included the following: . Policy:Nutritional needs of individuals will be provided in accordance with the established national standards .Procedure:1. a. Regular and therapeutic menus will be written to provide a variety of foods served on different days of the week, adjusted for seasonal changes, and in adequate amounts at each meal to satisfy recommended daily allowances. The facility's policy for Menu Substitution Lists, dated 2023, included the following: . Vegetables . Amount Equivalent to 1/2 cup . The facility's 2025 Spring/Summer Menu for Week 2, Day 11, Wednesday, Dinner for 08/06/2025, included the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-09-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and a review of facility policies titled, Handwashing and Glove Use, Cleaning Dishes-Manual Dishwashing, Diet Spreadsheet, and Food Temperatures, The facility failed to ensure: 1. the PPM (parts per million) in the sanitizer bucket reached 200; 2. the temperature of a pan of rice and hot dog were taken at the tray line and; 3. staff did not turn off the handwashing sink faucet with bare hand. This had the potential to affect 60 of 103 residents who may have received rice, and one resident who may have received a hotdog from the kitchen. Findings Include: 1) A review of a facility policy titled, Cleaning Dishes-Manual Dishwashing, with no date, revealed: . Procedure .5. Check sanitation sink often using a test strip to assure the level of sanitizing solution is appropriate. On 9/18/2019 at 3:02 p.m., the surveyor observed dietary staff (Employee Identifier) EI #3, nutrition worker, washing a cart off with a dirty looking cloth from the sanitizer bucket. EI #3 took a strip from a strip holder and dipped it in the bucket and brought it out. The water…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-09-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and review of a facility policy titled Glucometer Cleaning, the facility failed to ensure that Employee Identifier (EI) #2 did not place the glucometer in her shirt pocket between use on multiple residents. This affected 1 of 2 licensed staff performing point-of-care glucometer testing and 2 of 2 residents who received blood sugar monitoring, Resident Identifier (RI) # 58 and #341. Findings Include: A facility policy titled GLUCOMETER CLEANING last revised on April 15, 2013. Policy . It is the policy of (name of facility) to clean the glucometer after each use. Procedure 1. After completing blood sugar testing, remove glucometer from resident's room. 2. Obtain germicidal sanitizing sheet from super Sani-cloth container (purple top), and wipe down glucometer. 3. Return glucometer to cart and allow to air dry for at least 2 minutes. RI #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis to include Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2. RI #341 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-08-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure eight cups were air dried prior to use. This had the potential to affect eight residents who received meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: On 08/14/18 at 11:37 AM, while observing the tray line, the surveyor observed eight cups that were washed, then dried with paper towels. On 08/16/18 at 2:27 PM, an interview was conducted with EI (Employee Identifier) #1, CDM (Certified Dietary Manager). EI #1 was asked how were cups to be properly dried prior to use. EI #1 said they should be air dried. EI #1 was asked what was the concern with staff drying cups with paper towels. EI #1 said it was an infection control and cross contamination issue.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-08-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure: 1) Resident Identifier (RI) #80 was supplied with a new feeding tube syringe after the syringe had been used for more than 24 hours; and 2) Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) did not transport linen up against their clothes on two of three days of the survey. These deficient practices affected RI #80, one of three residents observed with a feeding tube, and CNAs on one of four units at the facility. Findings Include: 1) RI #80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses to include Encounter for Attention to Gastrostomy and Dysphagia. An Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/11/18, revealed RI #80 had a feeding tube during this assessment period. RI #80's August 2018 Physician Orders documented: .Probiotic Acidophilus supplement give 1 tab (tablet) Per tube qd (every day . NAMENDA 5 MG (milligrams) TABLET Give 1 tab per (by way of) peg…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$8,788 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,788 — penalty dated 2025-08-08
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| SYNOVOUS BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/03/2007 |
| BROWN, JOETTE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/03/2007 |
| STEWART, ALICIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2015 |
| KELLEY HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/11/2025 |
| CORNELIUS, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2021 |
| HARRISON, BOYDE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/16/2005 |
| KEY, APRIL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2023 |
| MARTIN, LACI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2022 |
| CHAMPION PARTNERS IN REHAB IX, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2008 |
| RIDGEVIEW HEALTH CARE, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/15/2024 |
| TYSOR, MISTY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/11/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $3.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 25% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Alabama Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 015155. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-08, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.